To say I'm indebted to the Internet would be a huge understatement.It has opened doors into research that were never available beforeit existed. It allows me to communicate with people all over theworld in seconds. And it has introduced me to friends that I neverwould have met without it.

Yet one cancerous side effect of this magnificent communicativetool is that it encourages laziness. Sloth. One of the Seven DeadlySins if you believe sins still exist.

Highlight.Right click.Copy.Paste.

It's so easy, isn't it?

Recently I came across a website with a page devoted to the artistElmer C. Stoner. As I have written my own piece about Stoner, Ibegan reading it. I was only a few sentences in before I noticed aremarkable similarity between it and my article. While the "author"had padded the first part of his bio with info obtained (but notcredited) from Ancestry.com, and a few speculations based onnothing in particular, he followed the structure of my articleexactly. The references to Stoner's patron Fred Morgan Kirby, hisinvolvement in the Harlem Renaissance, his failed early marriage.There was a mention of the 1939 World's Fair children's book I alsowrote about and the comic books he chose to list were all from mypiece. He even included information that artist Samuel Joynerrelated to me in a personal letter. There was more, but you get thegist.

I wouldn't have minded at all if the "author" had made the simplegesture of acknowledging my article as his source. But he didn't.Instead he employed the quasi-plagiarism preferred by middleschoolers who change a few words of a Wikipedia entry and turn itin as a term paper.

To add further insult, nearly all of the images he used toaccompany his article were lifted completely from mine. And to puthis intentions in an even worse light, he ran a copyright notice atthe bottom of the page with the year 2009; one year earlier than myposted article that he swiped.

I wish I could say that this was the only time I'd experienced suchblatant theft, but it's not.

Some years back I wrote an article about Archer St. John and hispublishing ventures. This was the first comprehensive history everwritten about St. John and an effort that took a decade of researchon my part.

Within two weeks of my putting the article online on myComicartville website, a St. John Publications entry appeared onWikipedia that was basically a Cliffs Notes version of my piece.The Wikipedia editor, who hides behind the username "Tenebrae"(which tellingly means "darkness" in Latin), that contributed thisentry has gained the enmity of a host of legitimate comichistorians for his unabashed thievery. When confronted about histheft of my St. John article, he shrugged it off by claiming minewas only one of his sources. A provable lie since mine was the ONLYsource available at the time.

Several years later, I published the testimony from the historicDetective Comics v. Bruns Publications trial on this blog. Again,this was the first time this information had been presented to thegeneral public since the trial in 1939. Soon after, a publisher whoI had previously allowed to reprint one of my articles, decided todownload the trial transcript and publish it without anyacknowledgment of where he had gotten it.

These are but a few of my experiences. And I'm not alone.

Jim Amash, artist, writer and the man behind some of the mosthistorically important interviews ever conducted with comiccreators, has been similarly victimized. He has many had quotes andanecdotes taken directly from his interviews and dropped intoothers writings without any credit to him. This practice occurredso frequently and had become so prevalent that Jim decided in thepast year to stop doing interviews altogether. His decision is agreat loss to all of comic fandom, but one I can fully appreciateand have contemplated myself.

Virtually every serious comic historian has a similar story. Dr.Michael Vassallo, Bob Beerbohm and Roy Thomas have all relatedtales of plagiarism and intellectual property theft. And yet itcontinues. If anything, it is getting worse.

On the chance that some of the research-phobic freeloaders arereading this, I have to ask:

What happened to common courtesy?

What is gained by stealing someone else's work?

What is lost by giving someone else credit?

I understand that research isn't easy. It can be a painstaking,boring, and often, expensive undertaking. But if you don't want tomake that effort, at least acknowledge the people who do.

******************************

Tony here:

I am not a comics historian. The only original comics historicalresearch or writing I do comes from my own career. What with beingthere for most of that, I feel confident about the accuracy of thatinformation.

If I had to give myself a title, “comics commentator” would serveas well as any. I most often respond to the work of others, be itin the actual comics they create or, in the case of Ken Quattro, the history they uncover and share with us.

My limitations in the field of comics history are why I am ever inawe of guys like Ken and Jim Amash and most others. They do greatwork in expanding our knowledge of this thing we love so dearly andmy own writings are better for their efforts.

There are, of course, so-called historians whose work I don’t feelthe same way about. Certainly the plagiarists are unworthy of therespect I accord Ken and Jim and their fellows. Additionally, asI’ve mentioned in the past, I have little regard for “historians”whose work consists of mere speculation or who exaggerate/fantasize their own role in the history of which they write.

When I write about my own career, I try to present that informationaccurately and with a large dose of caveats. Whenever I write ofother subjects and use the research or writings of others, I makenote of that as well. I might not always succeed, but that is thegoal and, if I fail to meet it, I will happily correct any slight.

I’m familiar with the kind of plagiarism of which Ken writes. I’vementioned it in the past and the only reason I didn’t name names indoing so is because the offended parties either did not wish to gopublic or failed to provide me with documentation.

When I write about the so-called historians without mentioning themby name, they usually recognize themselves anyway and then indulgein churlish attacks on me in their blogs or on mailing lists. It’ssomething that naturally comes with the territory of writing aboutserious wrongdoing and I accept it as a “cost of doing business.”

My integrity or reputation can’t be so much as scuffed by the likesof such individuals. They can annoy me, but they can’t lay a gloveon me. I’m still much prettier than they are.

Guys like Ken and Jim and their fellows are gold. We should neverforget to respect their work and thank them for it. I appreciate their dedication to preserving and presenting comics history and Iexpect to keep learning from them for many years to come.

Tony: I've compared the two articles side-by-side, and they appear to me to likely be two independent pieces of research. David Saunders is probably THE major historian when it comes to pulp illustrators, and his article contains much that is clearly independent research, while much of the other material is simply factual, and one really can't copyright facts and truth.

Regarding Quattro's claim that Saunders "followed the structure of my article exactly," I'll simply note that both articles are organized chronologically ... a not unusual ordering for a historical article. I suspect that Stoner's "Who's Who" entry (mentioned by Quattro in his article but not in his acknowledgements) probably also may have been ordered chronologically.

Following is a comparison of differences in the two piece. Paragraph numbers refer to Saunder's PULPARTISTS.COM article:

P1: Saunders cites names of Elmer's father, mother, brother, sister and grandmother, all unmentioned in Quattro's article, and also mentions name of church where Elmer's father was sexton (St. Stephen's Episcopal), also unmentioned by Quattro.

P2: Saunders states that Stoner quit school in 1909, and specifies "stock boy" as Stoner's jog at Kirby's 5&10 cent store. Quitting school and stock boy position were not mentioned in Quattro article.

P5: Full paragraph is totally different from anything in Quattro's article.

P7: Saunders writes that Stoner "apparently did not serve in the military," NOT mentioned by Quattro.

P9: Saunders writes that Elmer's father died in 1924 and "left him a modest inheritance" (important facts NOT mentioned by Quattro) and that Stoner soon began buying and renovating undervalued buildings for renovation and resale ... also NOT mentioned by Quattro.

P13: Saunders cites Stoner's first pulp work for Carwood's THE UNDERWORLD DETECTIVE, not mentioned by Quattro.

P15: Saunder's doesn't note that Stoner pencilled the first story in DETECTIVE COMICS #1, something that Quattro makes a big deal over (and rightly so). Strange omission if Saunders knew about it from Quattro's article.

P17: While both writers cite Stoner's WWII work with the USO, only Saunders mentions that Stoner did this "along with 400 other artists from the New York Society of Illustrators" (which I assume both David and his father were members of), and that these drawings of wounded servicemen "were sent to each soldier's designated family as a morale-boosting project," ALSO unmentioned by Quattro.

Anthony, I can appreciate your attempt to rehabilitate your friend's actions, but you are blinded by your friendship.

The personal family info Saunders mentions was taken from the census available from Ancestry.com, which I mentioned above. Where does Saunders mention this source? He doesn't.

His stating that Stoner quit school is based upon...what? Where did he get that information? It is a supposition on his part as far as I can tell. If he had a source, he certainly doesn't state it.

Same with his comment about Stoner working as a freelancer for local businesses. Again, just a supposition. No source mentioned at all. Do you see a pattern here, Anthony?

How about that modest inheritance? What source did he get that from? The fact that he bought an apartment building comes directly from my article. Saunders expanded upon it to say it was a "sideline of buying undervalued buildings for renovation and profitable resale." If he had another source that says otherwise, what was it?

I'll give him the other pulp from Carwood. That's one fact he knew that I didn't mention.

You consider his omission of Stoner's DETECTIVE COMICS #1 artwork as proof he didn't lift information from my piece? Geez, he must have overlooked it when he was listing all of the others that I listed.

You're right. I didn't mention the other 400 artists. Sorry. It had nothing to do with my article about Stoner.

The fact that Stoner was painting landscapes for art galleries circa 1950 was again from an unnamed source. You carefully omit the fact that Saunders states that he was also painting calendars for Pennsylvania Railroad came DIRECTLY from my article. And that information was related to me IN A PERSONAL LETTER from Samuel Joyner. If Saunders had another source, what was it?

And your last "difference" is laughable. It comes DIRECTLY from that Gordon's Gin ad I published with my text. That's the quote just before Stoner extols the virtues of Gordon's Gin.

Again, I cant' fault you for defending your friend, Anthony. But you totally ignore the fact that nearly every image Saunders used came DIRECTLY from my article. And if anyone reads the two pieces, it's evident that either he used mine as his prime (but not only) source. He never cites any source, if he had any. And I suspect that much of the personal detail that so impresses you was supposition on his part. He extrapolated from a few facts. That's the only conclusion one can reasonably come to since he, again, NEVER CITES ANY SOURCE.

He could resolve all of this if he simply used common courtesy and ethical practice by acknowledging his sources, of which I was undeniably one.

It's a shame that legitimate researchers like Amash, Quattro and others find their work stolen (or borrowed, if you wish) by folks trying to make an easy name for themselves. There is no shame in simply acknowledging the work of others, if you can't do the research yourself. Otherwise, you are just a crook and deserve no respect at all.